LTBA seeks FBR inquiry into alleged coercion and retaliatory audits in Larkana tax dispute

The Larkana Tax Bar Association (LTBA) has adopted a unanimous resolution calling for an independent investigation into the alleged conduct of a senior tax official of the Regional Tax Office (RTO) Sukkur

The Larkana Tax Bar Association (LTBA) has adopted a unanimous resolution calling for an independent investigation into the alleged conduct of a senior tax official of the Regional Tax Office (RTO) Sukkur over matters related to Tax Year 2025 involving members of the Pakistan Medical Association (PMA).

The resolution was approved during a formally convened meeting attended by LTBA office-bearers and members. In the document, the association urged the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and other relevant authorities to launch an immediate, impartial, and transparent inquiry into the allegations raised against the Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, RTO Sukkur.

According to the resolution, concerns emerged after reports suggested that several PMA members in the Larkana region were allegedly encouraged to submit revised income tax returns reflecting significantly higher tax liabilities. The association claimed that such requests were made without presenting supporting evidence, third-party information, audit findings, or any other legal grounds required under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Speaking to reporters, LTBA member Abdul Waheed Tunio said the association had consistently pursued a constructive approach and facilitated dialogue between representatives of the Pakistan Medical Association and tax authorities. He noted that meetings were arranged involving PMA Larkana President Dr. Sikandar, PMA Sindh President Dr. Dayali Gul, and relevant tax officials in an effort to address the matter through legal and professional channels.

Tunio said PMA leadership had shown a willingness to cooperate with tax authorities and had expressed readiness to contribute additional revenue to the national exchequer through lawful means. However, he maintained that repeated requests by the LTBA for the legal basis behind the proposed revisions were not met with satisfactory explanations or documentary evidence.

The association reiterated its position that taxpayers cannot be compelled, either directly or indirectly, to revise their income tax returns unless such revisions are supported by legal provisions, verifiable evidence, and the taxpayer’s voluntary disclosure.

“LTBA remained committed to upholding the rule of law and therefore could not endorse any proposal that, in its legal assessment, lacked a valid statutory foundation,” Tunio stated.

The controversy intensified after the association claimed that audit proceedings were initiated against the LTBA President and General Secretary shortly after the bar refused to support the proposed revised returns. According to the resolution, the audit cases were selected through the office of the Commissioner Inland Revenue, Larkana Zone.

The association argued that the timing of these audit selections has raised serious concerns regarding possible misuse of authority and retaliatory action against elected representatives of the tax bar. LTBA maintained that the circumstances created a reasonable perception of victimization aimed at penalizing bar office-bearers for independently discharging their professional responsibilities.

In its resolution, the association strongly condemned any effort to obtain revised tax returns without lawful justification and expressed no confidence in the conduct attributed to the concerned tax official.

The LTBA also outlined a series of demands, including a comprehensive inquiry by the FBR chairman and other competent authorities into allegations of coercive practices and retaliatory audit actions. It further called for an independent review of the audit cases involving its president and general secretary.

The association requested that the audits be withdrawn if an investigation determines they were initiated in bad faith or as a form of retaliation. It also demanded disciplinary and administrative action against any official found responsible for exceeding legal authority or misusing official powers.